More importantly, Nicks first statement can't be overemphasized enough: the deficit has decreased under Obama.

yep. won't show that stat on Fox, but it's still true.

I actually vote D because I'm a fiscal conservative who doesn't take that term for granted.

Not one GOP pres in my lifetime has ever actually backed that claim up. Yet both DEM pres's have steadily chipped the deficit away.

I know I'm not nearly as informed as others around here, but just thought I'd share this viewpoint FWIW

Deficits are down slightly from 2008-2009, but that was almost entirely Obama's presidency (not to mention a crisis). But aside from that, if you look at the deficits Bush ran before the meltdown, his three highest deficits *combined* are lower than any of Obama's one year deficits. A fiscal conservative voting for Obama because of his spending is like voting to re-elect Bush because you're a pacifist and you liked his foreign policy.

Bush's deficit numbers that you are referencing are misleading. They are due to Clinton's economic policies. Bush created the huge deficit we have now from spending immense amounts of money on two wars, one of which was not at all needed.

No, he didn't. Deficits were dropping steadily under Bush, from $412B in 2004 (his highest deficit) to $160B in 2007. All of Obama's deficits are around $1.3T. It's true that he's running slightly lower deficits than we had in the year of the bailouts/stimulus bill, but he's running deficits that are much higher than normal on a yearly basis.

Deficits under Obama are a much higher percentage of total receipts than anything we've seen since WW2.

More importantly, Nicks first statement can't be overemphasized enough: the deficit has decreased under Obama.

yep. won't show that stat on Fox, but it's still true.

I actually vote D because I'm a fiscal conservative who doesn't take that term for granted.

Not one GOP pres in my lifetime has ever actually backed that claim up. Yet both DEM pres's have steadily chipped the deficit away.

I know I'm not nearly as informed as others around here, but just thought I'd share this viewpoint FWIW

Deficits are down slightly from 2008-2009, but that was almost entirely Obama's presidency (not to mention a crisis). But aside from that, if you look at the deficits Bush ran before the meltdown, his three highest deficits *combined* are lower than any of Obama's one year deficits. A fiscal conservative voting for Obama because of his spending is like voting to re-elect Bush because you're a pacifist and you liked his foreign policy.

One could argue we'd still have budget surplus if it weren't for 8 years of GOP reign. Turns out that funding a war against the wrong enemy by issuing tax cuts to the rich isn't really a great plan...

One could also argue that there never would have been a surplus under Clinton if not for republican control of the house and senate, or point out that we wouldn't have stayed in the black with the economy Clinton left Bush unless 9/11 never happened. Funding the war added to the deficit but tax receipts went up after the tax cuts, I'm not sure that the argument that higher tax receipts lead to higher deficits really flies.

I suspect Obama will win. Momentum seems in his favor. Tie usually goes to the incumbent.

Either way (Obama or Romney), I'll be greatly disappointed. Just don't think either party is capable of giving us a reasonable candidate. Too much focus on "us vs them".

I refuse to vote for either.

That is very close to being my decision, too, KGs Knee...I hope you are more comfortable with it than I am, though. I don't remember missing a Presidential election. My mother (88) always says if you don't vote you can't complain. (personally, I can't imagine shutting up. )

I suspect Obama will win. Momentum seems in his favor. Tie usually goes to the incumbent.

Either way (Obama or Romney), I'll be greatly disappointed. Just don't think either party is capable of giving us a reasonable candidate. Too much focus on "us vs them".

I refuse to vote for either.

That is very close to being my decision, too, KGs Knee...I hope you are more comfortable with it than I am, though. I don't remember missing a Presidential election. My mother (88) always says if you don't vote you can't complain. (personally, I can't imagine shutting up. )

Well, thanks, but actually I do plan on voting.

There are plenty of State races with candidates I'm interested in, and just because I'll be voting for a candidate for President who has no chance of winning doesn't mean I won't still vote for the individual.

Quoting history will get you nowhere because we are talking about things too complex to pin on anyone. People will have to go with the candidate that matches their principles and give up on hoping that there is an empirical vindications for either of the candidates general economic views.

This is why I vote based on issues like who I want in the Supreme Court. The impact of a particular ideology on the SC has a far easier to understand impact than economic ideologies.

I suspect Obama will win. Momentum seems in his favor. Tie usually goes to the incumbent.

Either way (Obama or Romney), I'll be greatly disappointed. Just don't think either party is capable of giving us a reasonable candidate. Too much focus on "us vs them".

I refuse to vote for either.

That is very close to being my decision, too, KGs Knee...I hope you are more comfortable with it than I am, though. I don't remember missing a Presidential election. My mother (88) always says if you don't vote you can't complain. (personally, I can't imagine shutting up. )

Well, thanks, but actually I do plan on voting.

There are plenty of State races with candidates I'm interested in, and just because I'll be voting for a candidate for President who has no chance of winning doesn't mean I won't still vote for the individual.

Heck, I'd write in my own name if I was 35. Next time.

If your presidential candidate won, he or she would be forced to work under the same sketchy system all presidents are forced to work under, and you would likely end up resenting them the same way.

I'm also not sure that implying 9/11 was responsible for the Iraqi war really flies either. The war in Afganistan, sure.

Then why did we go just the WMDs? I think it played a huge part. It was a target they could easily set their sights on and win to get back some kudos for being asleep at the wheel. I don't you can protect against all kinds of terrorism. But this was a way to unite us and take out a long time foe and reward the military industrial complex. Even if you buy the WMD arguement what threat did they present to us? Iran was and is the much bigger threat to this day and probably sponsored much more terrorism than Saddam.

I don't think it matters who wins. Both parties are devoid of leadership and the political courage it will take to right the ship. When they are more concerned with politics than governing we have a huge problem. This election is most likely going to be close enough that whomever loses will cry foul and be bitter perpetuating the cycle.

I don't get voting for values or principles. I vote for whom I think will lead us best and do the best job. Value voters are not about freedom but getting their values in there for everyone else to have to follow. To some extent I find that very unamerican. If you don't like abortion don't do it. If you want to pray, pray, no one can control your thoughts. But to force these values on others is not something our forefathers would have liked.